Spider-Like Catamaran Travels 5,000 Miles On One Tank

Lucas123 writes "Proteus, a Wave Adaptive Modular Vessel that looks like a spider, is so fuel efficient that it can travel 5,000 miles on one load of diesel fuel. The 100-foot-long, 50-foot-wide boat rides on metal and fabric pontoons that have hinges and shock absorbers to flex with the motion of the waves, which helps it to skim over the water at a max speed of 30 knots. It made its debut yesterday in New York harbor."

Comments

Yeah but,

[mrbill1234]

How big is the tank?

Re:Yeah but,

[orson_of_fort_worth]

325,000 gallons

Re:Yeah but,

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, my first wtf-moderation comment.

325,000 gallons, which works out to 65 gallons/mile, is marked "informative"?

Re:Yeah but,

[orson_of_fort_worth]

Hmm. I was aiming more for +1 funny (which I guess it wasn't) rather than +1 informative (which it certainly wasn't because I just made up a big number). I guess I should have thought up a funnier number. How about this: 750,000 gallons (US) which is equal to 25 gallons (Proteus marketing).

Re:Yeah but,

[Anonymous Coward]

"With 2,000 gals of fuel aboard, Proteus has ocean crossings and long-range mission capabilities." http://www.wam-v.com/characteristics.htm

Re:Yeah but,

[RealGene]

According to this article, it's 2,000 gallons.

--Gene

Re:Yeah but,

[antarctican]

How big is the tank?

Exactly my thought. That's a non-sensical statement in the article - cargo ships can cross the Atlantic on a single tank of fuel. Fuel efficiency is the more relivant statistic if you want to impress.

However looking at the vessil, it looks fairly small, so perhaps it is a note-worthy accomplishment, we'll never know until the numbers are released.

Re:Yeah but,

[frovingslosh]

I had already read about this on the Scientific American site. It gets about 2 1/2 mpg. Hardly anything that rates the Slashdot hype headline.

Re:Yeah but,

[ZakuSage]

So in other words, it gets 1.5 miles to the gallon. Yeah, real fuel efficient.

Re:Yeah but,

[jzeejunk]

uh.. 100ft by 50ft?

Re:Yeah but,

[idego]

NMPG not MPG, just a slight difference. Oops Mars

Re:Yeah but,

[jamstar7]

Boats typically have rotten fuel efficiency compared to cars. You're lucky to get 2 gallons/mile out of most of them.

Re:Yeah but,

[Charcharodon]

I was thinking the same thing. My 4x4 pickup truck can go 5000 on one tank of fuel as well, as long as the tank holds at least 250 gallons.

Re:Yeah but,

[Alsee]

5000 miles on one tank of fuel is not impressive. This is.

-

Re:Yeah but,

[onet]

If you go to their website, you can read that it has a tank of 2000 gallons.

Re:Yeah but,

[Oktober Sunset]

I don't care how big the tanks it, having a ship that can cross the Atlantic on a single tank is brilliant news
I, frequently cross the Atlantic in my boat and I really hate having to stop at the service station for fuel halfway.

Re:Yeah but,

[JonathanR]

Except that ton-miles per gallon is a better indicator of fuel efficiency.

Approximate fuel consumption numbers are (from various sources):

Inland Waterways: approx 500 ton-miles/gallon
Rail: 70-200 ton-miles/gallon
Interstate Trucking: 40-100 ton-miles/gallon
Airfreight: 5-35 ton-miles/gallon

Absolutely useless reporting

[MadDog Bob-2]

How big is "a load" of diesel?

I mean, honestly, how many ships these days have to refuel for transatlantic trips?

Re:Absolutely useless reporting

[jdray]

How big is "a load" of diesel?

It can carry a shipload of the stuff.

Re:Absolutely useless reporting

[Hamster Lover]

My grandfather was a stevedore (longshoreman) and I actually phoned and asked him. He said smaller coastal ships could go about 2,000 to 2,500 nautical miles, while larger cargo and container ships could go 5,000 NM or more, depending on how much fuel they took on. Obviously, transatlantic container and cargo ships have to hold enough fuel to get themselves across the Atlantic.

Re:Absolutely useless reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, a few, a lot? Was there supposed to be an obvious answer?
Probably not many at that size. FFS, I know most of you don't read the articles, but at least look at the damned pictures.

Re:Absolutely useless reporting

[Chris Oz]

Just what I was thinking. They never say how big the tank is. The boat could be very efficient or it could be the equivalent of a super tanker. Actually super tankers are not to bad on the efficiency stakes, long water lines, but I think the point still stands. Really it is a case of bad reporting. It is like my friend who is working on quantum teleportation at ANU. Every couple of months the local news will pick up a story about something they will do and somehow spin it that we will be tele-porting around like Capt Kirk in 15 or so years. As he always says, assuming they can solve all the hard problems, it will work great as long as you don't mind being ripped into your component particles and then having 50% of them left behind in the process.

Re:Absolutely useless reporting

[TBerben]

It can carry a shipload of the stuff. Yes, but then the boat would become less fuel efficient because of the extra mass of the shipload of fuel..

Re:Absolutely useless reporting

[vux984]

it will work great as long as you don't mind being ripped into your component particles and then having 50% of them left behind in the process

Oh, so its a weight loss program too? Gad, is there anything quantum physics can't do!!!11

Re:Absolutely useless reporting

[grasshoppa]

About 2 cubic LOC ( library of Congress ).

Re:Absolutely useless reporting

[AJWM]

What? You mean there are no refuelling stops in the middle of the ocean? Who'd have thought it?

(Actually the support ships in nuclear carrier groups often refuel from fuel the carrier um, carries.)

Re:Absolutely useless reporting

[Duhavid]

No, it is the script from "The Incredible Shrinking Man".

Re:Absolutely useless reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

Large cargo ships are incredibly efficient at moving stuff around. The fuel costs are essentially zero to move a pound of stuff from China to here in a container. A vague ballparky number that'll get you in the area is 40 gallons per TEU per 1000 miles. That's 40 gallons of bunker fuel to more one 20 foot container 1000 miles, and that with a smaller ship.

It's all the everything else that costs money and fuel.

This thing sounds sort of crummy in terms of efficiency, which isn't too surprising. It's small, it's got a lot of stuff up in the air, relative to its size. It's probably moving pretty fast. At 12 tons all up, and 2 tons of cargo capacity, it's in the same ballpark as say a 40 foot sailboat (which happen to have easily-driven hulls, so the fact that it has sails is irrelevant), and a 40 footer will drink maybe 1 gallon per hour at 6 knots. That would take her 12,000 miles on the same 2000 gallons.

Note, however, your 40 foot sailboat wouldn't have anything like 2000 gallons on board. More like 50 to 100.

I'm having a littke trouble buying the 2000 gallon tank, on this thing, since that would run about 6 or 7 tons right there, which seems all out of proportion to the rest of the boat.

Finally, Ugo Conti is the inventor, but Jim Antrim from the bay area actually did the design work and the engineering. I think it was built up in Washington (Anacortes, maybe?)

The article sucks.

Re:Absolutely useless reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

it will work great as long as you don't mind being ripped into your component particles and then having 50% of them left behind in the process.

So it works as well as an airlines baggage transfer system

Re:Absolutely useless reporting

[pilsner.urquell]

RMS Queen Mary got 13ft per gallon, beat that!

Re:Absolutely useless reporting

[Kreigaffe]

foxnews has an article that gives its range as 5000 nautical miles on a full tank of 2000 gal of fuel

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Sep06/0,4670,Stra ngeWatercraft,00.html

Re:Absolutely useless reporting

[Hadlock]

Most people refuel in Bermuda and the Canary islands when sailing across the Atlantic. That's pretty close to the middle of the ocean. Nuclear powered aircraft carriers go 20 years on a fillup.

Re:Absolutely useless reporting

[DeadChobi]

Wow, Fox News has an informative article about the thing? That's news in itself.

Re:Absolutely useless reporting

[TriggerFin]

Shrinking by 50% isn't a problem, as long as height is preferentially maintained.

Re:Absolutely useless reporting

[Duhavid]

So, you want "The Thin Man".

How big is the 'one tank'?

[arsheive]

The article doesn't say... so how do we know how astoundingly efficient this thing is?

Re:How big is the 'one tank'?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteus_(WAM-V)

"Her outriggers store the 2,000 gallons of fuel that power the two Cummins Marine Diesel Quantum Series QSB5.9 355 horsepower engines at their sterns."

A PROTESS ship in New York Harbor?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

A PROTESS ship in New York Harbor? Surely, the Zerg can't be far behind...

Re:A PROTESS ship in New York Harbor?

[Anonymous Coward]

A PROTESS ship

Your geek badge has been revoked. Please hand it over to the receptionist on your way out.

Re:A PROTESS ship in New York Harbor?

[jdray]

This thing was in Portland (Oregon) last year, possibly doing sea trials. It's quite ugly, and doesn't look terribly comfortable to ride in, particularly when comparing it against catamarans of similar size.

Re:A PROTESS ship in New York Harbor?

[Anonymous Coward]

He missed the chance to say the Zorg aren't far behind.

Re:A PROTESS ship in New York Harbor?

[rxmd]

A PROTESS ship in New York Harbor? Surely, the Zerg can't be far behind...

I take it you mean the Zorg.

Re:A PROTESS ship in New York Harbor?

[Hal_Porter]

Don't be zergophobic! They are a species of peace.

Re:A PROTESS ship in New York Harbor?

[Jarik_Tentsu]

=O

Must be a new Starcraft 2 unit...

~Jarik

Miles per gallon?

[psychicsword]

Does anyone know the number of miles per gallon that this gets I read the article and it didn't seem to mention that. Maybe they should go with the super lightweight idea with cars instead of big blocks of metal with wheels... yes Hummer I'm talking about you.

Re:Miles per gallon?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Does anyone know the number of miles per gallon that this gets I read the article and it didn't seem to mention that. Maybe they should go with the super lightweight idea with cars instead of big blocks of metal with wheels... yes Hummer I'm talking about you.

YMMV

Re:Miles per gallon?

[kmac06]

If you want to drive a super lightweight car, go right ahead. Don't tell me what to drive though.

Re:Miles per gallon?

[smellsofbikes]

Superlightweight cars work great: fabulous gas mileage. My old Datsun 1200 weighed just about 1500 pounds and got better than 35 mpg even though it had late '60's engine and electronics. Currently, the Honda Insight is getting like 80 mpg, in large part because it weighs 1800 pounds. Here's the problem: nobody buys those cars. People have a strong herd mentality, and think, first off, that heavy cars are safer, and secondly, that if you have a range of options you choose something in the middle, not something at the very end. Thirdly, as people get older, they buy larger, heavier, more options-rich cars (which is why individual car models bloat over their lifetime, by the way: they're selling to the same people, over and over, only the people are demanding bigger and bigger cars.)

MPG is not really a super-relevant metric for cargo-hauling vehicles. A 747 gets a few feet per gallon, but it can transport about 10x as many people a given distance for a given amount of fuel burnt than a Cessna 152, getting about 17 miles per gallon. Gallon burnt, per pound moved a mile, or something like it, is much more useful. Airplanes are rated in gallons-per-seat-per-mile, basically, and it gives you a much better idea of what the machine's efficiency can be if fully loaded.

Re:Miles per gallon?

[Anonymous Coward]

A 747 gets a few feet per gallon...

wikipedia says that the smallest 747 tank is 48,445 US gallons with a range of 5,300 nautical miles. That's 6,100 (approximately) miles. And according to google:

(6 100 miles) / (48 445 US gallons) = 664.836412 feet per US gallon

(I was bored)

Re:Miles per gallon?

[tsotha]

People think heavy cars are safer because heavy cars are safer. Sometimes people are right.

Re:Miles per gallon?

[Chirs]

Depends on circumstances. A heavy car going a given speed has a lot more energy than a light car moving the same speed.

If you have two heavy vehicles that collide head-on, there's a lot more energy being dissipated in the collision than two light vehicles. Think two train locomotives vs. two bicycles.

It's true that generally speaking a collision between a light vehicle and a heavy vehicle generally results in more damage to the light vehicle...but that could just as easily be seen as a reason to get the heavy vehicles off the road so that the lighter vehicles are safer.

Re:Miles per gallon?

[Methlin]

But only because of all the other heavy cars out there. So really, heavy cars are more hazardous... to other drivers :P Anyhow a heavy vehicle isn't necessarily safer for being heavy, it depends more on construction.

Re:Miles per gallon?

[tsotha]

Oh, I agree heavy cars don't make the roads safer in aggregate. But people don't buy heavy cars to make the average driver safer. They buy heavy cars because if they get in an accident they want to win.

Re:Miles per gallon?

[MarkoNo5]

Ahem, there are other people in the world than americans. About 6.3 billion actually. In europe, many people buy small light cars. On top of that, they are often much safer than an SUV. The previous Range Rover has a 2 star euroNCAP safety rating, while my little citroen C3 has a 4 star rating. In a frontal collision at normal speed, I'll be the one stepping out of my car. The guy in the previous Range Rover can't walk because the pedals will have broken his legs, the roof will have come down, the steering wheel which will be pushed backwards will either block him or have broken his ribs, and because of the deformation, the door won't open anymore. The reason why my little car doesn't have that much storage space in the front is because it is filled with strengthening beams and airbags. More and more newer cars even have a 5 star rating. And trust me, if you have seen the results, you don't want to drive in a car with less than 4 euroNCAP stars.

Re:Miles per gallon?

[nebosuke]

If you have two heavy vehicles that collide head-on, there's a lot more energy being dissipated in the collision than two light vehicles. Think two train locomotives vs. two bicycles.

Personal safety in a crash is only related to total energy dissipated in that total energy dissipated places a hard cap on total energy dissipated through you. Vehicle safety design is centered entirely around dissipating as much energy through all parts of the vehicle except the passengers as possible. Greater vehicle weight is only an automatic lose if you're strapped to the exterior of the vehicle at the impact point.

A better example that illustrates the above principle in a more intuitive manner is running into a rock face at 25mph strapped into the driver's seat of a hummer vs hitting that same rock face at 25mph strapped into a pair of Nike shoes. Total energy dissipated in the first case more than an order of magnitude greater than the second, yet the first is going to be much safer than the second because less energy will actually be dissipated through the passenger.

Lighter cars can actually be far more dangerous in a head-on—even with other light cars—than two heavy vehicles. The problem is that very light vehicles simply do not generate sufficient forces to crumple the frame of the vehicle unless the frame is deliberately weakened to allow for this to happen. This presents a serious safety dilemma with very light vehicles, as crumpling the frame is one of the best ways to minimize forces exerted on passengers in a crash. Optimize for head-ons with other light vehicles (much weaker/easily crumpled frame) and you will be absolutely destroyed in a collision with a heavier car. Optimize for collisions with heavier vehicles (stronger frame) and you will be more likely to die in collisions with other light vehicles as the frame fails to crumple and your internal organs nearly explode out the front of your body due to the massive deceleration.

The further the weights of the vehicles involved in a head-on diverge, the greater the degree to which someone will be subjected to one of the undesirable scenarios above. Unfortunately for light vehicle enthusiasts, all other things being equal, the guy in the lighter vehicle always gets the shorter end of the stick. An otherwise walk-away accident may have been made lethal because one guy was driving an F350 rather than a light pickup, but it's the guy in the Geo Metro who dies.

You're looking at the classical prisoner's dilemma here. Do you raise overall safety by driving the lightest vehicle that meets your needs, or do you make the roads more dangerous but maximize your personal safety by driving a massive SUV?

All types of accidents considered, light vehicles may be safer overall but they're definitely not safer for anyone except the people in the other vehicle when you're looking at a head-on.

Re:Miles per gallon?

[rhakka]

as long as you're the one behind the wheel, that's true compared to SOME other cars (here's the actual data: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNote s/2006/809979.pdf where you might find some surprises, such as the mid size car being safer than an SUV).

Of course, you're also much more likely to kill the person you hit, but hey, don't let that bother you any, we don't mind. You do what you have to in order to be safe.

Me, I'm going to put a tank gun on my car, and if anyone gets too close, POW!!! Better safe than sorry, right?

Re:Miles per gallon?

[tsotha]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not thrilled about it - I drive a Carolla myself. All I'm saying it these people are motivated by rational self interest. They know that the biggest car in an accident wins, and they want to make sure their family is safer than yours or mine. What pisses me off is SUV drivers in most states don't have to pay more for liability insurance because of political pressure. As we all know, taking into account anything other than your driving record wouldn't be fair. Arg.

I'll see your tank gun and raise you a 1966 Ford Galaxy with a trunk full of ball bearings. You'll get better gas mileage, but I'll go in style.

Re:Miles per gallon?

[rhakka]

But that's just it: it's NOT rational. They THINK a heavy car is safer, and it's just not true. It might be safer in one case... a certain type of collision... but as the data shows, you are less likely to die in a car if you drive a full or mid size car than if you drive an SUV. Even better if you drive a minivan, or a full size van (though then we are back to a heavier car).

Compact cars are actually less safe than SUBcompact cars.

So it's not rational self interest, it's perceived safety based on a limited perception OF safety. The data disagrees.

More info from the manufacturer

[arsheive]

http://www.wam-v.com/

with some stats:
http://www.wam-v.com/characteristics.htm

still didn't see tank size though...

Re:More info from the manufacturer

[leipzig3]

2000 Gallon tank it says. So that's 2.5 miles per gallon on a 12 ton vessel. Given how fast it goes that's not bad.

LOAD =

[chkMINUS]

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteus_(WAM-V) a "load" for this boat is 2,000 gallons.

Re:LOAD =

[God'sDuck]

Hooray! 2.5 MPG! Global warming is like totally history!

Re:LOAD =

[XaXXon]

That wikipedia article sucks. The part where it's talking about it's range and fuel load isn't even correct english (at the time I read it).

I'm guessing it does better than 2.5 mpg..

Re:LOAD =

[XaXXon]

But this article sucks less..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070907/ap_on_sc/stran ge_watercraft;_ylt=AnZQeGeJ4mIRmad2pvwAPYas0NUE

Which does say 5000 miles on 2000 gallons. Apparently it has a maximum speed of 30 knots.

Re:LOAD =

[photomonkey]

For a non-nuclear, non-military research and/or search and rescue vessel capable of open ocean travel and very specific tasking, 2.5 miles per gallon is actually pretty damned good. Certainly much better than converted fishing vessels running 600RPM 9 litre diesels that might burn 2.5 gallons per mile.

I can't believe that got modded insightful.

Re:LOAD =

[Jarjarthejedi]

Why can't you believe that? The summary (and presumably the article, though I was far too lazy to actually read it) says that the boat is super efficient. Now to me, super efficient means better than 2 mpg. Even if 2 mpg is great for the boating world the article should be written for those outside that world (the majority) and so should say something like 'The catamaran, extremely efficient for a ship at sea, can go almost 5,000 mi on a single tank, or about 2 mpg.' Not saying the mpg and claiming to be super efficient means you're asking to be proven wrong if that mpg is less than expected, much like advertising super hi-speed internet that's only a little better than standard broadband leaves you open to ridicule.

Re:LOAD =

[Gregb05]

Are they rating the mileage in nautical miles, or in mile-miles?
if so, it's like... 5450 miles/2000 gallons, which is 15% better!

Re:LOAD =

[PitaBred]

Just because you're too lazy or dumb to figure out what "efficient" is for a 12 ton water-borne vehicle doesn't mean everyone is. What, you expect us to feel sorry for you or nod in agreement that 2mpg is horrible just because you can only look at efficiency in relation to a car? I can't believe that the majority of people NEED that kind of crap to tell them how to think.

Re:LOAD =

[Hadlock]

Sailboats get infinite miles to the gallon, can go three times around the globe without stopping to restock on food, and the technology's been avalible for over a thousand years. As late as the 80's people were circumnavigating the globe in wooden boats without engines (see the book Cruising in Seraphim).

Re:LOAD =

[aaarrrgggh]

Fuel efficiency for a boat is roughly proportional to its speed cubed for a displacement hull. 30 Knots is pretty fast at sea, so an operation that only needs to go a more common 10 knots should be fairly fuel efficient.

Would think that a planing design or hydrofoil would be much more efficient for high-speed craft.

Re:LOAD =

[Anonymous Coward]

Which also makes me wonder: could this type of vessel also make an secure and fast ultimate all-weather sailing boat? That would be (even more of) something!

Re:LOAD =

[Prune]

Mod parent, a cretinous imbecile, down. This is quite good for a vessel this size.

Re:LOAD =

[Jubedgy]

Possibly, but doubtful. IANANA (Naval Architect) but I do have a fair amount of sailing experience. The center of effort looks like it would be very high above the water, so I think you'd have a hard time bringing the center of gravity down far enough to make the boat safe in heavy weather.

Of course, I tend to keep a wary eye on those multi-hulled sailboats when the weather gets rough since they have a tendency to flip if you aren't careful (and a 50-60 foot catamaran is not something you can right very easily by yourself!).

Re:LOAD =

[Hadlock]

Yes - though they're called something else - hobie cats. Blue water sailing catamarans have been avalible for decades. Removing the sails and adding a bigger fuel tank isn't what I'd call "innovative"...

2000 gallons?

[dami99]

"Her outriggers store the 2,000 gallons of fuel that power the two Cummins Marine Diesel Quantum Series QSB5.9 355 horsepower engines at their sterns." Link to wikipedia article since the linked article is retarded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteus_(WAM-V)

Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[gardyloo]

http://www.wam-v.com/characteristics.htm

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[SoCalChris]

Actually, according to the link yo provided, the fuel tank is 2,000 gallons.

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[LWATCDR]

So less that 2 MPG???
Doesn't sound that great even with a crew of 10 a 747 gets better milage per seat.

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[qweqwe321]

But how does it compare to similar vessels? Is there anyone with marine experience that can chime in?

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding? No slashdotter has seen a body of water since baptism.

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[jfisherwa]

A mid-range recreational yacht (Say, $60k and 28 feet) will get anywhere from 0.5 - 4mpg. Usually towards the lower end of that scale.. considering the size and speed of that catamaran, it's really not too bad.

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[Yartrebo]

A 27 yacht that I know of gets almost 10 mpg using a 25+ year old auxiliary motor. Mpg is heavily dependant on the speed. If the boat is below the hull speed (perhaps 4 knots at that length?), a few horsepower is all that is needed and fuel consumption is far below 1 gallon/hour. Boats that are plowing or planing take far more fuel to power and require far greater engine power, despite the much lower weight of motor yachts vs. sailing yachts.

So going 4000 miles using 2000 gallons isn't much of an accomplishment in and of itself, though I must say the speed is impressive.

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[i41Overlord]

A fish can go pretty far using no diesel fuel at all.

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[Rauser]

They're nautical gallons.

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[McTaggart]

And if you put the sails up?

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[Hal_Porter]

Useless fact - per passenger a 747-400 gets 91mpg. Better than a Prius.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Environmenta l_impacts

Concorde travelled, per passenger, 17 miles for each gallon of fuel (mpg)[51] (or 20 l/100km). This efficiency is comparable to a Gulfstream G550 business jet (~16 mpg or 18 l/100 km per passenger), but much lower than a Boeing 747-400 (~91 mpg or 3.1 l/100 km per passenger)

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[Plunky]

A mid-range recreational yacht (Say, $60k and 28 feet) will get anywhere from 0.5 - 4mpg. Usually towards the lower end of that scale.. considering the size and speed of that catamaran, it's really not too bad.

I'm not sure what mid-range planet you are from, but I'm on a yacht right now. It cost me about $19k and is 31 feet long. For US mpg under engine, I would get about 10 (it drinks about 2litres per hour making 4-5 knots). I sailed across the atlantic a few years ago (~4000 miles) and only used about 80 litres (full tank is 140 litres) though I admit my average speed was considerably lower..

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[fishshogun]

well my boat is about the same size 8ft smaller. 92ft by 30ft and it cruises at about 12 knots and gets about 3 gallons to the mile. and yup I said 3 gallons to the mile. So it looked good from here.

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[Yvanhoe]

An old invention, probably soon to be rediscovered, can make a ship consume 0 MPG.

Seriously, a diesel-fueled catamaran ? why would it be more efficient than a single-hull vessel ?

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[Ulven]

Because you can get the main body of the vessel out of the water, so less drag.

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[Jaknet]

Boats that are plowing or planing take far more fuel to power and require far greater engine power, A boat that is planning is actually travelling in the most efficient method going as it's almost skimming along the surface of the water with as much of its hull out of the water as possible (far less drag) as opposed to one that is not planning which has a lot more of its hull in the water (far more drag) thus requiring more power to push it along. Ok it can take more power to get the boat onto the plane in the first place, but once it's on the plane it is far more efficient due to far less drag.

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[SimonInOz]

I had a mid-range recreational cat. It was 30 feet long and had bunks for 6 people.

I covered some 10,000 miles and used maybe 50 gallons.

Of course I also used solar power - I sailed a lot.

Maybe it would work for other boats.

In fact, damn why didn't I think of this before, didn't people do that in the old days? Before diesel had been invented?

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[nyekulturniy]

You don't want to use sails on a commercial vessel. To take advantage of a changeable wind and sea condition, a ship's master has to constantly adjust the trim of the sails. This is a very labor-intensive task, involving highly skilled workers. You can't do it without tying knots. Right now men are cheaper than robots, but ship owners are under constant economic pressure to keep costs down--shipping is very, very competitive, and ship owners are notoriously cheap. (Listen to a group of Coast Guard inspectors talk in shop and you'll hear stories that would chill you.)

Economics dictate fast, reliable transits, and that requires motor transit and as few crew as possible.

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[jfisherwa]

Definitely not talking about anything that can harness wind power.. as romantic and practical a sailboat is, I would say 80% of the mariners I've seen around Tampa and Seattle are still on good old gas guzzlers.

i.e. a Regal cruiser or such: http://www.regalboats.com/2008/SportYachts/WindowE xpress/3360/Gallery

http://www.cruisersyachtsownersclub.com/phpBB2/vie wtopic.php?t=344&sid=fbc2848afe6d8a0eb1bdef40a0731 b46

"All in all, I'm burning 44 gal/hr at 26.5 mph, or .6 mpg - about what I would expect."

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[stridebird]

10m sailing yacht with keel, 25 hp diesel engine :
2.25 litre / hour at approx 6 knots

soooo, roughly 15mpg...

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[bedroll]

That figure is assuming a full plane of 416 passengers. If you assume a full Prius, 5 passengers, then the 45 mpg highway [2008 EPA estimated mileage] for the vehicle becomes 225 mpg per passenger.

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[MrNaz]

Only if it doesn't come across a bigger fish that happens to be hungry at the time.

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[Anonymous Coward]

A full (5 passenger) Prius gets 45 mpg?

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[Rich Klein]

The way I read the information in the link:
With 2,000 gals of fuel aboard, Proteus has ocean crossings and long-range mission capabilities.
2000 gallons is how much fuel they'd take on for an ocean crossing, which may be less than a full tank. It also may be more than a full tank, and they envision using an optional larger tank. In any case, it doesn't say how many gallons of diesel fuel are required for the advertised 5000 miles.

You're probably right, and they did mean 5000 miles per 2000 gallons of diesel fuel, but the information on their website is unclear.

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[bedroll]

Probably not, but I doubt it gets the 18.2 mpg it would take to get worse gas mileage per passenger than the 747-400.

Then again, for all I know the fuel consumption of the 747-400 was measured while the plane was empty aside from the flight crew. If so, I would imagine that it would not get the same ~91 mpg per passenger with the added weight of a full crew, 419 passengers, and all of their luggage and amenities.

Re:Bzzzt... *Maybe* 4000 gallons

[Pukku]

Although this comment is pretty much unnecessary, I think I should note that you meant 0 GPM, or NaN MPG.

Big deal!

[the_humeister]

My sailboat (and galley of rowing slaves) can travel an infinite number of miles on a tank of diesel!

Re:Big deal!

[r_jensen11]

Actually, I think that the tank of diesel would make your boat less energy efficient.... Maybe we should try to focus on energy efficiency, rather than just fuel efficiency. Granted, if we can get both, that would be maahvelous

Re:Big deal!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're lucky, most ships have to stop halfway to refuel and take a fast food break.

Cause y'know, there's gas stations in the middle of the atlantic . . .

Re:Big deal!

[NeuroManson]

No... No... No...

The article said Diesel.

Not Vin Diesel.

Re:Big deal!

[Lehk228]

you sail your boat on a tank of diesel? thats one small boat, or maybe a fucking huge tank of diesel. either way doesn't the smell bother you?

Re:Big deal!

[Prune]

And I suppose your boat can do 30 knots in rough seas :rollseyes:

7 loads = 1 shitload

[Anonymous Coward]

7 loads = 1 shitload

That help?

Re:7 loads = 1 shitload

[enrevanche]

a metric shitload is 10 loads

Re:7 loads = 1 shitload

[Epistax]

That's 25.4 imperial loads, although it varies depending on the Queen's bust size.

I mis-read that as a caravan of spiders..

[Anonymous Coward]

I mis-read that as a caravan of spiders.. hitching a ride on a military tank for 5000 miles.

Re:I mis-read that as a caravan of spiders..

[CastrTroy]

I misread it as "spider-like Cartman". Now that would make a good episode of South Park.

After a long time, I'm proud of the USA

[bogaboga]

At first, I thought this thing was Australian made...but on further reading, I realized it was designed [and probably built] in San Fransisco. After a long time, being frustrated by America's out-sourcing of US manufacturing, I am happy I am American once again.

What we now need, is to recapture the electronics and auto manufacturing leads from Japan, China and South Korea.

Re:After a long time, I'm proud of the USA

[doyoulikeworms]

Manufacturing is overrated.

"Designed in ..." trumps "Made in ..." any day.

Re:After a long time, I'm proud of the USA

[RAMMS EIN]

``At first, I thought this thing was Australian made...but on further reading, I realized it was designed [and probably built] in San Fransisco. After a long time, being frustrated by America's out-sourcing of US manufacturing, I am happy I am American once again.

What we now need, is to recapture the electronics and auto manufacturing leads from Japan, China and South Korea.''

Why?

Also, what would you be willing to sacrifice?

Re:After a long time, I'm proud of the USA

[0xABADC0DA]

"Made in ..." trumps "Copied design from ..." any day.

Re:After a long time, I'm proud of the USA

[Noodlenose]

...I am happy I am American once again.

boy, are you easy to please.

lightweight cars a great idea?

[phedre]

Remember this relatively recent slashdot article? I couldn't find the article quick enough but I did find the article it was about. http://www.topgear.com/content/news/stories/1832/ Yup, that would be the fabulous electric car that is so LIGHTWEIGHT that it's not classified as a car anymore.

And no, I didn't catch the answer to your question, I just love watching that car crumple in such amazing ways.

Re:lightweight cars a great idea?

[modecx]

I googled and found the G-Wiz to weigh 665kg, that is 1460 lbs. The Ariel Atom weighs in at 456kg, a little over a thousand pounds. You get a car that is distinctly lighter than the electric car, and it's probably safer judging by the crash test photos on your page. Still, the Atom needs to be licensed just like any other car.

Of course, the reason behind this is undoubtedly the fact that the G-Wiz tops out at 45mph and that it probably takes a decade or so to approach that blistering speed. Naturally, I'm not comparing the two vehicles for the same purpose or market, I'm simply saying that weight is probably less of a factor than speed in its (dis)qualification as a regular car.

2000 Gallons

[Anonymous Coward]

Another poster pointed out the WAM-V site, where they say the fuel load is 2000 gallons.

12 tons full load. With 2,000 gals of fuel aboard, Proteus has ocean crossings and long-range mission capabilities.

Across the Atlantic...

[Anonymous Coward]

The article says it can travel "farther than across the Atlantic -- on one load of diesel fuel." Er... Isn't this true of most vessels crossing the Atlantic? (Especially ones like, say, the Mayflower?)

Reminds me of

[saibot834]

That kind of reminds me of the stealth ship in James Bond, Tomorrow Never Dies. Looks quite similar, though it's smaller.

Re:Reminds me of

[Bazards]

ever seen this before? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Shadow_(IX-529)

Re:Reminds me of

[CastrTroy]

From the article you linked to.

The villain's ship in the 1997 James Bond movie Tomorrow Never Dies was based on Sea Shadow although the movie version of the ship had geometric features that would make it non-stealthy. The ship in the movie also appeared to have an interior larger than its exterior. Due to its shape, the Sea Shadow's interior is actually rather small and cramped compared to the size of the ship.

That just really made me laugh. The kind of thing that makes wikipedia much better than any other encyclopedia, such as Britannica.

How big of waves can it handle?

[schwit1]

The North Atlantic is not a nice place to be in a storm.

Re:How big of waves can it handle?

[arthurpaliden]

Its a great place to be in a storm. Beats midway rides all to heck. Especially if you are on a large enough ship. Been they and done it many times.

Re:How big of waves can it handle?

[iminplaya]

Yeah, the Pacific is much more pleasant :-)

Re:How big of waves can it handle?

[Mantis8]

The North Atlantic is not a nice place to be in a storm.

Especially if it's a perfect one ;)

How efficient?

[Trailwalker]

Payload 4000 lb. In this prototype, the payload is a boat with berthing for 4 and independent propulsion.

This is nothing more than a nautical wheelbarrow. Even coke smugglers need a bigger payload.

Is that "load" bigger than a Pantload

[Anonymous Coward]

Great reporting. I love technical reporters that use accurate terms like "Load".

no, it is not more efficient

[someone1234]

That model requires liberal amounts of rum.

Re:no, it is not more efficient

[riffzifnab]

Or less then liberal amounts of rum via grog.

Re:no, it is not more efficient

[Bazer]

Oh! So it runs on ethanol? I hear it's all the rage lately with the green folks.

Obligatory

[joh_tank]

I, for one, welcome our new Spider-like overlords!

5000 mile range on a 2000 gallon tank

[PalmKiller]

...so is 2.5 miles/gallon for a lightweight water spider thingy really that great?

Re:5000 mile range on a 2000 gallon tank

[RAMMS EIN]

``...so is 2.5 miles/gallon for a lightweight water spider thingy really that great?''

Not by a long stretch.

5000 miles on one tank, wow!

[okmijnuhb]

Oh wait, the article says it has a 6,000 gallon fuel tank, and a nuclear power plant aboard.

Fuel efficiency calculated

[elysiana]

They're claiming it's fuel efficient? Since when is fuel efficiency based on number of miles per tank? If that's the case, I'm going to start claiming my 4x4 truck is just as efficient as a compact car...

Re:Fuel efficiency calculated

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, when you generally have tanks of the same sizes, they kind of assume that you know how big it is. Most marine applications are modular in that you have to pass so many engineering tests and stuff to have them approved. It would likely be easier to just use a prebuilt setup the getting a custom job certified. In this case, it is around 2000 gallons which equates to a couple miles per gallon. While seemingly a low number of miles, it is rather efficient for a vessel this size.

If you wanted to compare your 4x4 to a boat, I used to have a 19 ft bay liner (speed boat) with 2 30 gallon tanks, 2 15 gallon tanks and a built Chevy 350 powering it(about 500-600 horse power). We swapped the Chrysler motor out with a Chevy after blowing the force up. At a top speed of around 60-65 mph which is extremely fast on the water, I used about 1 gallon per minute. The same motor in the truck it came out of got around 9 miles to the gallon at 65 mph on the road (1 gallon every 9 minutes). This spider boat, even though it isn't really comparable, would be about as efficient as 19-20 MPG on the road or better. But seeing how it is a 12 ton vessel, you would expect it to get even worse efficiency then my bay liner. So it is or should be a pretty decent improvement compared to similar boats.

Recent, More Efficient Invention

[aldheorte]

Ship builders around the world have recently stumbled upon an amazingly efficient design for ocean travel. The breakthrough came when builders realized they could put large poles on the middle mass of a boat. This gave them a platform on which to mount large sheets of material. At first decorative in nature, on some trial runs, the first users reported that some mysterious force was moving the boat even when the engines were off!

A crack team of scientists determined that this force was a result of changing relative atmospheric pressures resulting in a large amount of mostly nitrogen gas moving in one direction or the other. When they encountered the sheets of material builders had mounted on the boat poles, they exerted pressure on them in parallel with the direction of flow. As a result, ships tended to move in that direction, subject to hull shape. Some very enterprising inventors have recently created sheets of materials and ways of attaching them to the poles that allows ships with oblong hull shapes to even move *towards* the direction of the flow, albeit with some zig zagging back and forth.

This revelation is even more astonishing in light of estimates on efficiency. Apparently, ships built in this manner can go virtually an unlimited distance entirely by using these flows. In fact, the limits of their range are basically the decay rate of the materials employed for the flow catch sheets. We are truly in a new age that will allow worldwide commerce, exploration, and research.

Re:Recent, More Efficient Invention

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh great, another free energy loon. Go play with you fantasy over-unity device.

Re:Recent, More Efficient Invention

[DocSavage64109]

Good point. If we *all* switched over to wind power, it could slow the wind to the point that clouds that form over the oceans and lakes never make it over land, thus causing rivers to dry up and rain to never fall on land. It would be a devastating disaster!!! I am so glad we have these fossil fuels to burn instead.

Re:Recent, More Efficient Invention

[F4_W_weasel]

Hummm, amazing, I think we could use this invention to run free from religious persecution and find a new world to our faith...

No gas stations in the Atlantic

[mdmkolbe]

Since there are no gas stations in the middle of the Atlantic, aren't most boats already designed to cross it on one tank?

Diesel?

[BubbaFett]

Looks like it might run on dilithium crystals instead.

Feel good stories

[Dan East]

These "feel good" kind of stories are really annoying, because they leave out so many details that most people end up with a completely skewed perception of the facts.
I did a quick search to get an idea if 2.5 MPG was good for a boat. Here's an article that tested the fuel efficiency of some standard boats - ie boats with normal hulls that sit down in the water, with regular screw propeller propulsion. So they should be pretty poor compared to many other style hulls, etc.

One particular boat has a V8 350 cubic inch engine that can do 51 MPH. So that's pretty fast. At that speed the boat gets 2.4 MPG, which is basically the same as the boat in the story. At a slower speed of 26.9 MPH it gets 3.6 MPG, which is almost 50% better than the "spider boat". Now obviously the range of these boats are vastly reduced - it's like rocketry, where the more fuel you carry to gain distance, the more weight you have to haul, so the actual gain in distance is only small (or perhaps even negative). So these boats can't begin to touch 5000 miles on one tank.

So perhaps the significance of this story is ratio of the range to fuel efficiency? If so, it would have been nice if the author would have simply said that.

Dan East

Re:Feel good stories

[badboy_tw2002]

Those are tiny runabouts, try crossing the Atlantic even when there's not a storm and you're going to have a problem. Most _ocean_ fairing vessels (that is, cruise ships, tankers, cutters, etc) cut through the water, not ride on top. There are traditional vessels that do this, but its a very very rough ride and you're not carrying much cargo.

You also have to factor in the loaded weight, range, and payload, and cruising speed. That's what's important here - the fact that you can get a stable ride, rest outside of the water while carrying some payload (for comparison, this boat can almost carry the boats you mentioned on top of the framework).

Re:Feel good stories

[GreyWolf3000]

It's also important to consider how much payload the boat can carry at that efficiency.

Re:Feel good stories

[flight.software.vet]

No, NASA did NOT design this boat. Maybe the designer got free design information from NASA however.

Re:Feel good stories

[evilviper]

At a slower speed of 26.9 MPH it gets 3.6 MPG, which is almost 50% better than the "spider boat".

Congratulations. You've discovered that slower speeds require less power to sustain. I can't wait to see your 500MPG car that goes a max speed of 2MPH.

Now obviously the range of these boats are vastly reduced - it's like rocketry, where the more fuel you carry to gain distance, the more weight you have to haul, so the actual gain in distance is only small (or perhaps even negative).

Err, no. Boats need a certain amount of ballast anyhow. Up to a point, the added weight is free.

And please don't compare boats to rockets again...

Re:Feel good stories

[pipingguy]

Don't you mean *under* the framework in this case? It appears to me that the widely-spaced pontoons combined with a lower centre of gravity when carrying a load is a good idea. I also wonder if the load is suspended flexibly and can act as a pendulum if the craft is hit by large waves. I'm no naval architect though.

It's sea-faring, by the way.

Re:Feel good stories

[badboy_tw2002]

Right on both acounts! What, were we argueing about?

Re:baptism

[datapharmer]

Baptism - Is this some new linux distro I haven't heard of?

Re:GOD DAMNIT

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to believe you're automagically posting at -1, fucktard.

Fuel efficiency

[tygt]

Many have noted that crossing the Atlantic with "one load" of fuel is not a new accomplishment, that ships do it every day.

The interesting bit here is that you have a small craft making 30 knots crossing on 2,000 gallons; this presumably is out of the norm.

Re:Fuel efficiency

[the Jim Bloke]

According to the article, it could do a MAX speed of 30 knots.. They neglected to mention what its cruise speed was.

Re:Fuel efficiency

[J_Omega]

I had no idea that there are ships able to cross the entire Atlantic ocean in a single day? Whoa!

/sarcasm off

Haha Aussies with mod points got ya!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you and the Australia hating horse you rode in on.

If it weren't for the interesting stuff being reported from Aussie these days /. would have folded ages ago.

Are you a pom, a yank or a kiwi?

You are a whinging fucken poof that's for sure.

Depends on displacement

[Solandri]

Most of those commercial fishing vessels around 100' LOA are ~100 tons displacement. This vessel is only 12 tons displacement (6.8 tons of which is fuel if my calculations are correct). With that much difference in mass, the commercial vessel would actually be more efficient burning 3 gal/mile, the primary limitation being range due to capacity. I suspect the point of this vessel is more platform stability and high speed capability in heavy seas without adversely affecting range.

Much better is possible

[cayle clark]

Provided you are content to drive a displacement hull (a normal, rounded-vee shape) at no more than its "hull speed" you can go VERY long distances on VERY little horsepower and hence fuel. I am basing this on The Troller Yacht Book by marine designer George Buehler, in which for example, he claims that his 48-foot "Diesel Duck" can go 11,410 miles (Tahiti, anyone?) on a fuel load of 900 gallons i.e. over 12 m.p.g., which makes the snazzy catamaran look pretty bad.

The hitch is, you cover that distance at a speed of 6.77 knots, and it takes you a couple of months. Suddenly the catamaran looks a little better...

Re:Much better is possible

[tweel]

My trawler yacht has a 130 ton displacement with a 24 litre diesel engine .
At 1000 rpm (cruising) it does 9 knots which gives it 12000 miles range on
10,000 US gallon tanks or 1.23 gallons per mile. However my payload is 10 people
and 25 tons of equipment.

Re:Much better is possible

[ColdWetDog]

But the neat thing (at least in theory) about this design is that you can attach various "superstructures" (the spider-body) part to a standard hull. You could reconfigure the craft to haul people, gear, bulk items at will. Of course, marine engineers have been doing this for ages with hammers, nails, welding torches and the like but this method looks cooler. Likely not very cost effective, at least in the short run.

And I'll take 26 knots to your 9 any day.

video

[giorgosts]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070907/ap_on_sc/stran ge_watercraft;_ylt=AnZQeGeJ4mIRmad2pvwAPYas0NUE (or you can save with mplayer $ mplayer -playlist "http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?sid=43 071431&t=wmv&br=400&s=2022436514&start=0&end=&afr= 2&nid=3996206&mid=3996204&d=40&pg=NDgwMzM0NDIzNDZl MWQ1Yz&q=6939189985647e4101ee1c&authid=&sl=40&so=/ free/local/wcbs/103151&sdm=&pt=&tcode=&audio=0" -dumpstream -dumpfile proteus.wmv

conversion please?

[commodoresloat]

How much is that in Libraries of Congress?

Introduced?!

[peacefinder]

I've been seeing pictures of that thing for a year or two. It was built in Longview, Washington or thereabouts and people 'round here kept posting snapshots of it on their blogs with titles like "What the hell is this thing?"

spider boat, spider boat, does whatever ...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a retarded boat. First off, it's not ground-breaking fuel efficiency. A similar class 50' boat, a Nordhavn 50, has nearly the same fuel efficiency. (Nordhavn 50' has 3222 miles (2800NM), on 1300 gallons. More or less equal to this spider-boat's 5000 miles on 2000 gallons). Next, it takes alot more to cross the ocean than fuel. Otherwise you'd see containers with fuel and a motor stuck to them. If a wave rolls this boat over... something tells me its not gonna get back up. Not to mention it has significantly less space compared to normal boats its size and fuel efficiency. The physics of a water strider do not scale terribly well, and it's a shame someone needed to build something this big to find out.

Re:spider boat, spider boat, does whatever ...

[Anonymous Coward]

As has been pointed out, it's substantially quicker than the boats it's being compared with. It's a VERY easily driven form, with a very long waterline for its size, and I'm not even sure what the flexibility of the hulls does for the resistance curves. It's probably most efficient at 12 or 13 knots, which is fairly brisk for a boat of this capacity, and it's likely that efficiency doesn't drop off too fast as it speeds up.

As for flipping over, there are two remarks to be made:

1) you are almost certainly underestimating how hard it is to flip a 50 foot wide object over in the sea. It's extremely difficult, espcially if the center of gravity is nice and low due to have a couple tons or so of fuel in down low. The CG is probably no more than a couple of feet above the waterline. To be sure, it's probably very stable inverted, the sad sad song of all multihulls. It's also extremely stable upright. I think you'd need to take a 30 or 40 foot breaking swell broadside to flip her, which means you are either in the southern ocean, or a hurricane.

2) even at 13 knots, with reasonable weather prediction and even a little caution, you can avoid bad situations pretty easily. If you can maintain 30 knots for even a few hours, you can get out of the way of almost anything. The key here, of course, is maintaining communications so you know what's out there.

I agree it's a bit retarded. I might say it's more a niche boat, though, were I feeling kind.

Inflatable soft hulls? Like a zodiac boat?

[Optic7]

Isn't that kind of dangerous for a vessel marketed for long-distance ocean travel?

Re:Inflatable soft hulls? Like a zodiac boat?

[ColdWetDog]

Not really. You don't make them as one giant balloon. I'm sure that they're divided into separate cells and the forward floats on the picture look to be reinforced. Additionally you can patch them with duct tape should the need arise, always a plus in my view.

Re:Inflatable soft hulls? Like a zodiac boat?

[argent]

Don't worry, if it's good enough for NASA and Dr Schlock, it should be OK for boats.

For a boat? Yes, it is....

[Joce640k]

I don't think you have any idea of how much fuel a normal boat uses - it's a LOT!

Yawn.

[ErikZ]

"Proteus, a Wave Adaptive Modular Vessel that looks like a spider, is so fuel efficient that it can travel 5,000 miles on one load of diesel fuel.

Feh. Big deal. A 747 can go 7,260 nautical miles on one load of fuel.

The Space Shuttle can get into ORBIT on one load of fuel.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. And a 747 only carries 63,705 U.S. gal (241,140 L) or fuel. That works out to over 8mpg, but still, if this boat could carry that much fuel, well....dayumn. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/pf/pf_4 00er_prod.html

much better article

[Anonymous Coward]

A much more complete and informative article appeared in the East Bay Express.

MOD UP

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD UP +1 Insightful or Informative! Without Australians Slashdot would be nothing now.

Re:baptism

[Anonymous Coward]

You keep using that word. I do not think that means what you think it means.

Re:baptism

[nacturation]

Baptism - Is this some new linux distro I haven't heard of? You're thinking of Baptix (Avid Aqua release), but this was later made obselete by Crucifix (Rusty Rail release) which managed to nail down a good balance of features.

I'll take the light one

[MonorailCat]

Light cars have the advantage of handling and braking better than heavy cars (all other things being equal). That's a big +2 for safety for all you keeping track at home, it also 'counts' way more frequently (how many times a year do you swerve or stomp on the brakes, vs how many catastrophic head-on collisions per year).

Mass is a penalty in almost every situation, the only exception I can think of being impact with a less heavy vehicle. It's unfortunate that some think this outweighs all the other benefits to low mass vehicles.

I dream of a day when I can buy a sporty 2000lb or less car that's not an Elise or a homebuilt.

Re:I'll take the light one

[pipingguy]

I dream of a day when I can buy a sporty 2000lb or less car that's not an Elise or a homebuilt.

Didn't that used to be the CRX? I owned two of them; neat, nimble little cars.

metric buttload, imperial shitload

[HornWumpus]

I always get them confused myself.

My carrier could go 15,000 miles on a tank

[A nonymous Coward]

But that was at 15 knots and 8700 tons in the tank ... (USS Midway, CV-41)

Re:baptism ? OMG! And MG replied:

[aqk]

Once again, sir-

You are thinking of JESUX!

Do NOT let it happen again.
-YG

Yeah... that.... uhhh

[slummy]

!looks_safe

Re:Yeah... that.... uhhh

[zippthorne]

It's perfectly safe, as long as you aren't President Lincoln.

Mod up please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ta.

Betcha it's a Kiwi.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking bunch of sheep shagging queers! Have you noticed how all of them try to sound like Brits when they talk? It's hysterical coz a Kiwi is the uneducated riff raff of the Brit empire. I spent two years living in London and know for a FACT that the poms think Kiwis are a bunch of bloody losers, and they're right!

Go shag some more sheep ya wingeing Kiwi bastards and stop trying to get the attention of us grown ups.

Ummm,,, SWATHs, anyone?

[Slugster]

Seems like a SWATH could do something close to this (cruise rough seas) without all the active mumbo-jumbo (whatever it is).
On the one hand, a SWATH has more hull-surface drag - but on the other hand, the greater submerged hull volume means more fuel storage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Waterplane_Area _Twin_Hull

I especially like this line from the story:

"...Ugo Conti, an Italian-born engineer and oceanographer who designed Proteus, was aboard a chartered harbor cruise boat during his creation's star turn on Thursday. ...."

Not aboard for the maiden press voyage? Hmmm,,,,,
~

sorry

[ack_call]

I for one welcome our new Spider-Like Catamaran overlords!

not mpg but mile tons per gallon

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words the proper units of vehicle efficency are "miles times cargo-tons per gallon".

Inland waterways seems low

[Flying pig]

I just returned from a low speed week out (around 40 miles at about 3mph average.) I have a Euro V compliant Diesel and the boat weighs 11 tonnes. Fuel consumed 15 litres. That is roughly 30 tonne miles per litre (sorry about mixed units) which works out about 140 tonne miles per gallon. This agrees closely with Thornycroft's expected values.

Roughly what displacement are you writing about?

Columbus set the MPG record

[Ancient_Hacker]

Columbus got over 2,000 miles per galleon.....